This article was downloaded by: [National Chiao Tung University

]
On: 28 April 2014, At: 05:22
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Transportation Planning and

Technology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gtpt20

Development and application

of an airport terminal
simulation model a case
study of CKS airport
a

J.T. Wong & T. C. Liu

Institute of Traffic and Transportation ,

National ChiaoTung University , Taipei, Taiwan,
10012 , ROC
Published online: 21 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: J.T. Wong & T. C. Liu (1998) Development and application
of an airport terminal simulation model a case study of CKS airport,
Transportation Planning and Technology, 22:1, 73-86
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081069808717620

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in

relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

Transportation Planning and Techno!., Vol. 22, pp. 73-86

Reprints available directly from the publisher
Photocopying permitted by license only

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

'

1998 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V.

Published by license under
the Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers imprint.
Printed in India.

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION

OF AN AIRPORT TERMINAL
SIMULATION MODEL - A CASE STUDY
OF CKS AIRPORT
J.-T. WONG and T.C. LIU
Institute of Traffic and Transportation, National Chiao-Tung University,
Taipei, Taiwan 10012, ROC
(Received 16 February 1998; In final form 23 February 1998)
Technology advancement, terminal user behavior and changes of service characteristics of
terminal facilities all have great impact on airport terminal operations. Consequently, the
adequacy of traditional airport terminal planning concepts and standards have recently
been challenged and are worth being explored.
To investigate the associated impact of environmental changes on terminal operations, a
simulation model which takes into consideration air travel patterns, facility operational
characteristics, flight delays, passenger behavior and needs, etc. is developed and verified.
The simulation logic and results show that the model works well for the case of CKS
(Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport, Taipei) operations. Also, the exploration demonstrates that passenger arrival patterns, numbers of group passengers, flight delays and load
factors all have very significant influences on terminal space requirements. This result
strongly suggests that local characteristics should not be neglected in planning terminal
operations.
Keywords: Airport terminal; Simulation; Space requirement

1. INTRODUCTION
In general, passenger behavior, flight delays and service characteristics
are not taken sufficiently into account in the airport terminal planning
process. Terminal space requirement is roughly set by means of standard formulae or procedures. As a result, terminal space is often not
adequate for actual operations.'1'21 In reality, passengers may arrive
73

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

74

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

much before their flight time due to the inconvenience of the ground
access system. Flights may be delayed due to weather conditions or
airport congestion. In such cases, passengers may overcrowd the
terminal. Therefore, if these related factors are not carefully explored
during the planning process, the terminal may be operated in a less
than acceptable manner. It will be either not fully utilized or overcrowded. It is for this reason that in this study a variety of factors, along
with their impact on terminal operations, are investigated.
An airport terminal is an air transportation facility. Transportation
is its very basic and most important function. It provides convenient
processing, mode transfer and a comfortable holding area for air passengers.'31 To meet the service requirement, there must be adequate
terminal facilities and space. Traditionally, these facilities and space
are directly related to the number of passengers and are used only for
transportation purposes. However, airports are becoming more than
just a place for aircraft to land and take off. In a modern airport,
commercial space not directly necessary for air transportation is
attracting great attention. Increasingly, airports around the world are
shifting to private ownership. With sparkling shopping malls, high-rise
hotels and connecting business plazas, some airports have evolved
into commercial hubs for surrounding communities, competing against
nearby metropolitan centers for travelers' cash once spent mostly
downtown. One example is Frankfurt Airport in Germany. Housing a
hotel and convention center under one roof, it aims to create an "airport
city" with sophisticated urban functions. The other example is
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands. Its terminal includes
a hotel, tax-free shopping center, a business center with relevant facilities, etc. Yet another example is Changi Airport in Singapore. It has
around 100 shops in terminals 1 and 2. The facility is like a huge
shopping center. Aside from the shops, restaurants, hotel and other
facilities also contribute to the mini-city atmosphere. In the case of
Taiwan's Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport, the plan is that it will
also be converted into an "airport city" as part of the government's
intention to make Taiwan a regional operations center. As a consequence, these land-side facilities are becoming the major source of
income for many major international airports.
More commercial space available in an airport may be a trend.
However, there are no hard and fast rules to follow. Utilization of

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

AIRPORT TERMINAL SIMULATION

75

this space is very much dependent on the philosophy of the airport

management. It completely depends on the airport operator's decision.
When it is considered desirable to provide more space for duty-free
shopping, recreation, and business offices, an airport terminal requires
more space. In other words, the space for ancillary facilities varies
with the business goals of the airport operator.
For transportation planners, their major concern is the impact of
environmental changes on terminal operations and the associated
space requirement. Therefore, the main theme of this paper will focus
on passenger traffic characteristics and their impact on terminal
operations. Furthermore, inbound and outbound operations in the
CKS (Chiang Kai-Shek, Taipei) terminal are separate. They can be
analyzed independently. Since outbound operation is much more
affected by external factors, in this study we will focus only on the
space and facilities needed for processing, circulation and waiting of
outbound passengers.

2. FACTORS AFFECTING TERMINAL

SPACE REQUIREMENT
Terminal space includes processing, holding, circulation and ancillary
units. After reviewing the relevant literature,11"81 we recognize that
most studies do not consider comprehensively factors that affect
these terminal space requirements. Empirical and statistical formulae
are commonly applied to size individual processing facilities within
the terminal buildingJ2'41 A simple queueing approach with the assumptions of Poisson arrival and exponential service time distribution is
frequently adopted.15"71 However, the arrival and service patterns vary
with the time of day. They cannot adequately be described as having a
fixed distribution. Besides, some important factors cannot be carefully
taken into account in the queueing approach. As a result, the simple
queueing approach and statistical formulae may not be appropriate
for space requirement decision-making. To plan these space units properly for passengers at a specified 'level of service' (LOS), one should
clearly understand the various factors which affect the space required
(only for transportation purposes) and how the space is affected.

76

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

These factors include:

(i) Passengerflow Given a set of terminal operating conditions, peak
occupancy and waiting time in a terminal is simply determined by
the peak passenger flow. Thus, the most important element in computing terminal space is peak-hour passenger flow into and out of the
terminal. To estimate the number of peak passengers, US-FAA has
suggested a ratio of typical peak hour passengers (TPHP) to annual
passengers as shown in Table I. However, this may differ significantly
from the actual number. The actual number of peak-hour passengers
is based on actual flight schedules which are determined by many
factors such as market demand, availability of aircraft, etc.
(ii) Passenger characteristics Passenger characteristics include passenger arrival patterns and passenger behavior in the terminal. Different passenger characteristics will result in different terminal space
occupancy.'1'21 Ashford[10] has pointed out that passengers on different
flight routes may have different arrival patterns. Similar results were
found in our survey. Table II reveals that passengers with different trip
purposes, ground access times and personal characteristics exhibit
many differences in their preferred terminal arrival time. Passengers on
European/Australian routes arrive at the terminal much earlier than
those on other routes. This is because most passengers surveyed on
European/Australian routes were traveling as leisure/group passengers.
On the contrary, passengers on the Hong Kong route arrive at terminal
not so early as their counterparts on other routes. This is because of the
very high frequency on the route and a cooperative agreement between
China Airlines and Cathay Pacific Airways. Once a flight has been
missed, a passenger can get a seat soon on another flight without much
difficulty. As to the behavior of group passengers, who share a great
proportion of the market, an even greater difference is found. Table III
TABLE I

Ratio of TPHP to annual passengers"1]

Annual passengers
> 20,000,000
10,000,000-19,999,999
1,000,000-9,999,999
500,000-999,999
100,000-499,999
< 100,000

TPHP IAnnual passengers (%)

0.030
0.035
0.040
0.050
0.065
0.120

AIRPORT TERMINAL SIMULATION

TABLE II

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

Flight route

Hong Kong
Japan
North American
European/Australian

77

Arrival patterns of passengers on different flight routes

Arrival time before flight departure (min)
Mean

Standard deviation

81.5
110.6
103.6
147.1

28.3
33.4
31.8
28.5

TABLE III Arrival patterns of individual and group passengers

Type of passenger

Individual
Group

Arrival time before flight departure (min)

Mean

Standard deviation

97.4
162.5

30.1
12.9

shows this difference is statistically highly significant. Group passengers are asked to arrive at the terminal much earlier. They generally
arrive at the terminal together by chartered bus. The earlier the passengers arrive at the terminal, the longer they occupy the terminal space.
Consequently, to maintain a reasonable level of service when there is a
large number of group passengers, providing more space should be
considered. This implies that passenger characteristics should be seriously taken into account.
(iii) Service characteristics Along with technology advancements
and revolutions in airport management, airport operators frequently
introduce new facilities and operating strategies to improve terminal
service quality and solve capacity deficiency problems. Because of
such changes, passengers must adjust their patterns of behavior while
using the terminal. For example, common use of terminal equipment
reduces waiting time at the check-in counter. It also reduces the time
passengers may spend in the check-in lobby. The use of smart cards
for ticketing, check-in and security checks will further reduce the
processing time and increase the passenger flow rate. If a terminal is
further equipped with an efficient people-mover, the time needed to
process its air passengers will be significantly reduced. Momberger[121
has pointed out that a passenger can complete the whole process
within 45 minutes if new technology is applied in the terminal. Thus,
change of operating characteristics should not be ignored.

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

78

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

(iv) Flight delays When flight delays occur, a terminal will be

crowded with not only passengers for scheduled flights but also
passengers of delayed flights. Those delayed passengers obviously utilize more terminal space than originally envisaged. Jovanovic[131
analyzed Ljubljana Airport flight delays and concluded that the probability of a change in the flight departure sequence is about 9.26%. The
number of passengers in the central hall will accordingly increase
between 50% and 80%. Our study, employing flight delay data from
CKS airport,1141 shows that the number of peak passengers in the
check-in area based on actual flight departures is 9.12% more than
the number based on the flight schedule with no delays taken into
account. Since the possibility of flight delays cannot be eliminated, it is
better to have this factor considered in determining the amount of
terminal space.
(v) Design standard (LOS) Planned LOS for future terminal
operation is one of the key factors in determining adequate space. The
higher the LOS is set, the more space should be allocated. Traditionally,
terminal space planned by traffic engineers is based on studies for
other modes of transportation. However, those facilities are different from the airport terminal facility.'151 Davis and Braaksma'161
developed a standard for passengers moving from one area to another
within the transportation terminal as shown in Table IV. Ashford'171
reviewed standards for a variety of airport terminals. It appeared that
standards for different airports were different. The space for each
passenger varied from 1 to 3 m2. Since this has a great influence on
the terminal space requirement, an airport authority should consider
LOS, cost and its goal very carefully so as to make a more informed
decision.

TABLE IV Platoon flow LOS criteria for transportation terminals'16'

LOS

Speed (m/s)

Flow (ped./min/m)

Area module (m2)

A+
A

>1.4
1.3 ~ 1.4
1.2~ 1.3
1.1 ~ 1.2
1.0~l.l
0.7 ~ 1.0
<0.7

<37

37~46
46~57
57~68
68~75
75~57

>2.3
1.7 ~ 2.3
1.3~1.7
1.0~1.3
0.8 ~ 1.0
0.7 ~ 0.8
<0.7

B
C
D
E
F

<57

AIRPORT TERMINAL SIMULATION

79

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

3. TERMINAL SIMULATION MODEL

A terminal consists of well-organized space units. These are linked on
the basis of passenger handling procedures. In order to manage and
apply the simulation model, the whole model is divided into four parts
as shown in Fig. 1. The first part is from the terminal entrance to the
entrance of the emigration procedures area. The second part is from
the entrance of the emigration procedures area to the security-check
area. The third is from the security-check area to the entrance of the
departure lounge. The last part is from the entrance of the departure
lounge to the boarding ramp.
Based on the known or simulated flight schedule, aircraft type, load
factor and passenger arrival pattern, a variety of passenger-related
characteristics are generated. Every minute, passenger activities and
the movement in each block of the terminal are scanned and the
related statistics are computed.
To be clear, the logic of our simulation model is described as
follows. Since every block of the simulation model consists of procedures for processing, holding and circulation, it is worthwhile addressing the concept of passenger handling in these three space units. First,
to handle the passengers at the processing facility, service policies
governing the number and time of counter opening and closing are set
on the basis of a field survey. Given the passenger arrival pattern and
the facility service policy, the passengers are processed and move
within the terminal during the course of the simulation period. Second,
part 3',
Departure;

; part 3

Security <i

check 'FT"")

part 4

part 4
'Departure
Departure Jg
Lounge

Emigration
procedures

Departure
Lounge

parti I

Ancillary
facility

.
PR
UA

SQ

CX
MH

CI
NW
CP
OF
VN

FIGURE 1 The simulation model structure.

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

80

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

to assess passengers using ancillary facilities such as shops and restaurants, a survey is conducted so as to collect information about how
passengers spend slack time. The survey result is then used for the
model input to simulate passenger activities in the ancillary facility.
With minute-by-minute scanning set in the simulation model, time
variation of space occupancy and passenger flow at the relevant area
and facility can thus be recorded and analyzed.

4. MODEL VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

Simulating terminal space requirement involves many complex variables. On any given day, passengers are arriving continuously for
check-in, emigration procedure, security check, etc. The occupancy of
space in every unit is continuously changing. Uncontrollable factors
alter the simulation result. Due to these uncontrollable factors such as
flight delay, passenger arrival pattern and passenger characteristics,
etc., it is hard to control very accurately the parameters of the model
input. Consequently, it is difficult to validate the model output. Nonetheless, the model can be verified by tracing the simulation output.
After verifying the correctness of the model logic, we use the data collected from the field to validate the model. By tracing the model output,
we find the pattern of open and closed check-in counters well within our
expectations. Moreover, compared with the number of passengers
computed from flight timetables, the outputs of passenger flow and
occupants of associated spaces also have expected results.
Finally, we validate the model via comparison between the real
data and the model outputs of passenger arrival patterns both at the
terminal entrance and the boarding area. The results are shown in
Figs. 2 and 3. Estimates of R2 of the simple regression equations equal
0.77 and 0.93, respectively. Moreover, if the simulated results fit
perfectly to the observed, the coefficients of the regression equation
should equal 1. As expected, both t values suggest that under 95%
confidence level, the hypothesis that the coefficients are equal to 1
could not be rejected. Furthermore, we adopted Theil's inequality
coefficient.
If U=0, there is a perfect fit. If U= 1, the predictive performance
of the model is as bad as it possibly could be. The U values of the

AIRPORT TERMINAL SIMULATION

81

Simulated

300
230

200

130

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

100

r-ioow.

50

iililiiiliiisi

Jt'-OTT

W- O.0W

/
/

Observed
50

100 150 200 250 300 350

Time

FIGURE 2 Passenger arrival at the terminal entrance.

Passengers

Simulated
- - - -Observed

3500 .
3000

3000
2500

2500

2000
1500 .

-\ \

2000

:\V

1500

.,-,v\v<>--i-."
,..,. ....... ,..

1000

i I I i
Time before departure

Observed
0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

FIGURE 3 Passenger arrival at the departure lounge.

simulated results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are 0.099 and 0.098, respectively. From these results and statistics, we can see that the simulation
model works satisfactorily. In the following section, we will apply it to
analyze the impact of various affecting factors.
5. MODEL APPLICATION
Factors to be investigated include annual number of passengers, route
distribution, load factor, group passenger and arrival pattern. The
basic input of the experiments is listed in Table V, which corresponds
to the 1995 survey situation. The flight schedule of the representative case will be applied through the experiments except those cases
listed in Table VI. In those cases, the timetables are generated on the

82

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

TABLE V

Basic input of the simulation experiments

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

Item

Input

Annual outgoing passengers

Regional flights: intercontinental flights
Load factor
Arrival pattern of group passengers
Arrival pattern of individual passengers
No. of group passengers: No. of individual passengers
No. of male: No. of female
TABLE VI

6.5 million
80%: 20%
60%
260-95 min
180-15min
50%: 50%
70%: 30%

Outputs of flow and occupant for various annual passengers

Annual outbound passengers (million) 0.5

Occupant (pax)
Check-in area
Ancillary area
Emigration procedures
Departure lounge
Flow (pax/h)
Check-in
Emigration area
Departure lounge

10

20

30

40

162
67
19
116

303
174
32
204

1277
868
145
583

2588
1601
318
1191

5626
3167
665
2542

7950
4620
916
3642

10492
6391
1238
4586

166
227
227

32
349
319

1481
1685
1618

2759
3365
3349

5684
6855
6732

8453
9914
9812

11454
13377
13329

same pattern as the existing timetable. The simulation results are

summarized in Tables VI-X. Some points drawn from these tables are
stated briefly below:
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

The increases of terminal occupants and passenger flow are

approximately proportional both to the increase of annual passengers and to the increase of load factors.
Differences of peak passenger flow and occupants among cases
with different ratios of intercontinental flights may reach as high
as 30% or more.
The proportion of group passengers in a terminal will have a
tremendous impact on the space requirement. It, however, has
far less impact on the peak passenger flow.
The passenger arrival pattern also has very significant impacts on
the space requirement. Similarly, it has only little impact on the
peak passenger flow.
Table VIII shows that since during peak season the load factor
can reach as high as 90% or more, the check-in area - which at
CKS occupies 2336 m2 - can be crowded with more than 2500
passengers. This means the space allotted to each passenger

AIRPORT TERMINAL SIMULATION

83

during the peak period is less than 1 m2. The terminal obviously is
operating at near capacity. Again, this result meets the current
terminal situation. To alleviate congestion, a second terminal is
under construction and scheduled for operation in 1999.

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

TABLE VII Outputs of flow and occupant for various route distributions
Region/'Intercontinental
flights
Occupant (pax)
Check-in area
Ancillary area
Emigration
procedures
Departure lounge
Flow (pax/h)
Check-in
Emigration area
Departure lounge

100:0 90:10 80:20 70:30 60:40 50:50 40:60 30:70 20:80 10:90 0:100

2215 1828 1767 1838 2025 1868 2171 2170 2069 2457 2419
1312 1178 997 1082 1133 1242 1213 1334 1355 1507 1533
246 230 197 190 209 209 205 243 233 257 280
904 835 837 790 1090 967 1000 1145 1157 1202 1480
2193 1816 1743 1971 2090 2071 2149 2149 2226 2524 2503
2589 2088 2128 2151 2408 2421 2666 2627 2472 2582 2981
2544 2108 2119 2178 2404 2467 2687 2623 2482 2806 2929

TABLE VIII

Outputs of flow and occupant for various load factors

Loadfactor

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Occupant (pax)
Check-in area
Ancillary area
Emigration
procedures
Departure lounge

1691
1076
201

1938
1166
218

2225
1387
231

2568
1460
257

2940
1677
339

807

960

1061

1151

1658

1723
2007
2094

2095
2313
2346

2208
2377
2317

2580
3006
3017

3040
3672
3659

Flow (pax/h)
Check-in
Emigration area
Departure lounge

TABLE IX Outputs of flow and occupant for various ratios of group passenger
Ratio of group passenger
Occupant (pax)
Check-in area
Ancillary area
Emigration procedures
Departure lounge
Flow (pax/h)
Check-in
Emigration area
Departure lounge

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

653
931
195
431

850 1066 1197 1434

968 997 1008 1019
210 195 189 196
535 717 643 761

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1683 1804 2093 2672 2926

1111 998 1057 996 837
202 197 196 220 190
790 788 1031 1016 1083

1.0
2945
881
205
1064

1822 2029 1976 1748 1749 1731 1718 1749 1749 1752 1765
1985 2215 2151 2014 2033 2048 2011 2211 2124 2127 2148
2188 2331 2291 2058 1998 1995 1944 2162 2130 2011 2020

84

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

TABLE X Outputs of flow and occupant for various passenger arrival patterns
Group

260

230

200

170

140

Non-group

180

150

120

90

60

Occupant (pax)
Check-in area
Ancillary area
Emigration procedures
Departure lounge

1863
1006
216
886

1478
1069
209
666

1241
951
194
591

889
951
190
468

626
888
198
415

Flow (pax/h)
Check-in
Emigration area
Departure lounge

2058
2514
2489

1786
2074
2142

1884
2363
2474

- Observed

Vehicles
80 _ _

1760 1708
1995 2084
2160 2233

Simulated

Simulated

70
70

60
30

V H

40

60

''.'

SO

30
40

20
10

:39

20
:09

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

Time of the first arrival

{minutes before departure)

Si

5 1 8

Time

10

SO

60

70

80

FIGURE 4 Vehicle arrival at the curbside.

In addition, this simulation tool was applied to curb planning.

Simulating passenger arrivals and thus transferring them to vehicle
arrivals, we then can assess curb utilization demand. To demonstrate
applicability of the model, a case study was conducted. The results
from the volume count and simulation are shown in Fig. 4. Again, it
suggests that the performance of the model is acceptable.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The simulation results demonstrate that the traditional procedures

used by traffic engineers may not be in agreement with real operations.
It also implies that the transferability of planning standards and procedures should be very carefully examined. Local conditions should
be deliberately incorporated, especially for those airports with a large
proportion of group passengers.

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

AIRPORT TERMINAL SIMULATION

85

During the study process, we found that searching a set of inputs

which can represent the airport conditions may be difficult but is
nevertheless important. Since the various changes can have significant
impacts on terminal operation, current operations may not be appropriate for the model input. Therefore, it is always worth pondering
over the input issue when a terminal simulation is to be used.
Setting a planning guidance suitable for most airports is an important task. The key, however, lays in the understanding of the related
factors and their impacts. Thus, more simulation runs with careful
examination and interpretation are urgently needed.
A cknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the National
Science Council, Taiwan, ROC for the funding of the research project
on which this paper is based.
References
[1] T.J. Foster, N.J. Ashford and N.N. Ndoh, "Knowledge based decision support
in airport terminal design," Transportation Planning and Technology, 19, 165-185
(1995).
[2] A.R. Odoni and R. de Neufville, "Passenger terminal design," Transportation
Research A, 26A(1), 27-35 (1992).
[3] N. Ashford and P.H. Wright, Airport Engineering, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., New York (1992).
[4] V. Tosic, "A review of airport passenger terminal operations analysis and modeling,"
Transportation Research A, 26A(1), 3-26 (1992).
[5] F.X. McKelvey, "Use of analytical queuing model for airport terminal design,"
Transportation Research Record 1199, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC (1988).
[6] N. Ashford, M. O'Leary and P.D. McGinity, "Stochastic modeling of passenger and
baggage flows through an airport terminal," Traffic Engineering and Control, 17(5),
207-210(1976).
[7] H.P. Piper, "Estimation of passenger flow in departure halls," Airport Forum, 20(3),
50-53, June (1990).
[8] S.A. Mumayiz, "Overview of airport terminal simulation models," Transportation
Research Record 1273, 11-20, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC
(1990).
[9] IATA, Airport Terminals Rejerence Manual, 7th Edition, International Air Transport
Association (1989).
[10] N. Ashford, N. Hawkins, M. O'Leary, D. Bennetts and P. McGinity, "Passenger
behavior and design of airport terminals," Transportation Research Record 588,
18-26, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (1976).
[11] N. Ashford, H.P.M. Stanton and C.A. Moore, Airport Operations, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd., New York (1984).

Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University ] at 05:22 28 April 2014

86

J.-T. WONG AND T.C. LIU

[12] M. Momberger, "Speeding up air travel on the ground," Airport Forum, 25(3), 32-34,
June (1995).
[13] T. Jovanovic, "Modeling a real airport flight schedule for outgoing traffic," Airport
Forum, 20(4), 50-54, August (1990).
[14] J.T. Wong, "Modeling flight delay at CKS airport," Chiao Ta Management Review,
15(1), 19-37 (1995).
[15] C. Mller and G.D. Gosling, "A framework for evaluating level of service for airport
terminals," Transportation Planning and Technology, 16, 45-61 (1991).
[16] D.G. Davis and J.P. Braaksma, "Level-of-Service standards for platooning pedestrians in transportation terminals," ITE Journal, 57(4), 31-35, April (1987).
[17] N. Ashford, "Level of service design concept for airport passenger terminals - a
European view," Transportation Research Record 1199, Transportation Research
Board, Washington DC (1988).